DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

HU-304 :- Professional Ethics & Human Values

Assignment-1
ROLE OF WHO IN COVID-19 PANDEMIC

SUBMITTED TO: Submitted by:

Mrs. Shikha Gupta Ashutosh (2K17/ME/066)

Assistant Professor Gagandeep (2K17/ME/093)

(DTU) Gaurav Kumar (2K17/ME/096)

Gautam Meena (2K17/ME/098)

Lokesh Meena (2K17/ME/128)

Madhur Grover (2K17/ME/130)

 ROLE OF WHO IN COVID PANDEMICS
WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION

The World Health Organization (WHO) is the directing and coordinating authority on
international health within the United Nations’ system. WHO experts produce health
guidelines and standards, and help countries to address public health issues. WHO also
supports and promotes health research. Through WHO, governments can jointly tackle global
health problems and improve people’s well-being.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United

Nations responsible for international public health. It is part of the U.N. Sustainable
Development Group. The WHO Constitution, which establishes the agency's governing
structure and principles, states its main objective as ensuring "the attainment by all peoples of
the highest possible level of health. It is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, with six semi-
autonomous regional offices and 150 field offices worldwide

193 countries and two associate members are WHO’s membership. They meet every year at
the World Health Assembly in Geneva to set policy for the Organization, approve the
Organization’s budget, and every five years, to appoint the Director-General. Their work is
supported by the 34-member Executive Board, which is elected by the Health Assembly. Six
regional committees focus on health matters of a regional nature.

Over 8000 public health experts including doctors, epidemiologists, scientists, managers,
administrators and other professionals from all over the world work for WHO in 147 country
offices, six regional offices and at the headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.

The role of WHO in public health

W.H.O fulfils its objectives through its core functions:
 providing leadership on matters critical to health and engaging in partnerships
where joint action is needed;
 shaping the research agenda and stimulating the generation, translation and
dissemination of valuable knowledge;
 setting norms and standards and promoting and monitoring their implementation;
 articulating ethical and evidence-based policy options;
 providing technical support, catalysing change, and building sustainable
institutional capacity; and
 Monitoring the health situation and assessing health trends.

These core functions are set out in the Twelfth General Programme of Work, which
provides the framework for organization-wide programme of work, budget, resources and
results. Entitled "Not merely the absence of disease", it covers the 6-year period from
2014 to 2019.

Ethical considerations into national influenza pandemic preparedness

plans

Although no one can predict when the next influenza pandemic will occur, since the 16th
century, the world has experienced an average of three pandemics per century, occurring
at intervals of 10 to 50 years (1). Morbidity and mortality have varied across pandemics,
making accurate predictions of the impact of the next pandemic impossible. However, a
new influenza pandemic may result in a significant burden on human health and lead to
major social and economic disruption. In addition, the implementation of public health
measures aimed at limiting social interaction (such as restrictions on gatherings and
population movements) are likely to have a major impact on trade and tourism. In view of
these possible consequences, countries and the international community must prepare to
cope with a pandemic and mitigate its impact.

Many critical ethical questions arise in pandemic influenza planning, preparedness and
response. These include:

 Who will get priority access to medications, vaccines and intensive care unit beds,
given the potential shortage of these essential resources?
 In the face of a pandemic, what obligations do health-care workers have to work
notwithstanding risks to their own health and the health of their families?
 How can surveillance, isolation, quarantine and social-distancing measures be
undertaken in a way that respects ethical norms?
 What obligations do countries have to one another with respect to pandemic influenza
planning and response efforts?

A publicly discussed ethical framework is essential to maintain public trust, promote

compliance, and minimize social disruption and economic loss.

General ethical considerations

1. Balancing rights, interests and values

Preparedness planning for influenza pandemic involves balancing potentially conflicting

individual and community interests. In emergency situations, the enjoyment of individual
human rights and civil liberties may have to be limited in the public interest. However, efforts
to protect individual rights should be part of any policy. Measures that limit individual rights
and civil liberties must be necessary, reasonable, proportional, equitable, non-discriminatory,
and in full compliance with national and international laws.

In balancing competing interests and values, policy-makers can draw on ethical principles as
tools for weighing conflicting claims and for reaching appropriate decisions. Ethics does not
provide a prescribed set of policies; rather, ethical considerations will be shaped by the local
context and cultural values. The principles of equity, utility/efficiency, liberty, reciprocity,
and solidarity are especially helpful in the context of influenza pandemic preparedness
planning. Although these principles often give rise to competing claims, they provide a
framework for policy-makers to assess and balance the range of interests that follow from
them. All ethical deliberations must take place within the context of the principles of human
rights, and all policies must be consistent with applicable human rights laws.

2. The evidence base for public health measures

Public health measures that involve significant costs and/or burdens should be reserved for
situations where they can be reasonably expected to make a difference to the consequences of
a pandemic. Because little may be known about the virulence and transmissibility of the next
influenza pandemic virus until it has started spreading widely, judgments about the likely
effectiveness and benefits of public health measures will often be difficult and may change
over time.

Policy-makers should base their decisions on the best available evidence at any given time.
To facilitate these efforts, in the event of a pandemic, WHO attempts to disseminate
evidence-based guidance as rapidly as possible, as the pandemic threat evolves. Preparedness
plans should be flexible enough to allow timely adaptation as new evidence about the nature
of the disease arises.

3. Transparency, public engagement and social mobilization

Public engagement and involvement of relevant stakeholders should be part of all aspects of
planning . Policy decisions and their justifications should be publicized and open to public
scrutiny. This will help to:

• increase public awareness about the disease related risks and enable people to take steps at
individual, family, workplace and community level to prepare for and respond to an influenza
pandemic;

• contribute to the development of adequate and effective plans and increase public
confidence that policies are reasonable, responsive, non-discriminatory, and in line with local
circumstances and values;

• secure the agreement of the public and civil society on the use of therapeutic and
prophylactic measures and their distribution;

• provide useful feedback to planners regarding both information that they may lack (such as
on local conditions) and the acceptability of their plans to the general public;

• maintain public trust, add to the legitimacy of plans, and ensure the accountability of
decision makers both in the planning stage and during a plan’s implementation;

• promote public compliance and mitigate fears of the unknown and the possibility of social
disruption or panic that can result, particularly in circumstances where the public is expected
to make sacrifices and possibly incur financial loss or infringements of their personal
autonomy.

4. Information, education, and communication

In order for public engagement in preparedness planning to be meaningful, effective modes

of communicating with and educating the public about the issues involved are essential. The
principles of outbreak communication are: trust; transparency; communicating to the public
early, dialogue with the public; and planning. Advance planning will allow the development
of strategies that will reach the entire population and that are linguistically and culturally
appropriate. The following types of information should be communicated during all periods,
including the inter-pandemic period:

• The initiatives being undertaken to allow citizens or communities to participate in the

development of pandemic response policies;

• The nature and scope of the threat and related risks, and the spread of the pandemic;

• The steps that are being taken to respond to the pandemic, including new policy
developments and their justifications;

• Scientifically sound, feasible and understandable measures people can take to protect
themselves and/or others from infection.
The decision-making criteria and procedures that will be used during an influenza pandemic
should be communicated to the public as far in advance as possible. Some of this information
will inevitably be uncertain and this uncertainty should also be communicated in clear, non-
alarmist language. Information available will change continuously throughout the pandemic,
requiring adjustments of response strategies based on ongoing assessments of the risks and
potential benefits of interventions. These adjustments, and the justification for them, should
be communicated to the public.

5. Resource constraints

While all countries must make reasonable efforts to prepare for an influenza pandemic,
differences in access to resources mean that what is reasonable for one country may not be
reasonable for another. In developing countries, limited resources and immediate health-care
needs may make it difficult to develop and implement comprehensive plans .

In some cases, it may be possible to generate resources by using available funds more
efficiently. In addition, some measures, such as developing culturally-sensitive
communication strategies, may be achievable with a relatively modest commitment of
resources. However, at some point countries will have to make difficult decisions about the
relative weight to be given to pandemic preparedness compared to other important public
health priorities, such as HIV and malaria.

These decisions about resource allocation should be informed by a process of public

engagement, and their rationale should be clearly communicated to the public. The resource
constraints facing developing countries, as well as the global nature of the threat, underscore
the importance of international cooperation in developing a global response to an influenza
pandemic.

INTRODUCTION TO CORONAVIRUS

Coronaviruses are a family of viruses that cause disease in animals. Seven, including the new
virus, have made the jump to humans, but most just cause cold-like symptoms.
Covid-19 is closely related to severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) which swept around
the world in 2002 to 2003. That virus infected around 8,000 people and killed about 800 but
it soon ran itself out, largely because most of those infected were seriously ill so it was easier
to control.
Another coronavirus is Middle East respiratory syndrome (Mers), cases of which have been
occurring sporadically since it first emerged in 2012 - there have been around 2,500 cases and
nearly 900 deaths. 
Covid-19 is different to these two other corona viruses in that the spectrum of disease is
broad, with around 80 per cent of cases leading to a mild infection. There may also be many
people carrying the disease and displaying no symptoms, making it even harder to control. 

So far, around 20 per cent of Covid-19 cases have been classed as "severe" and the current
death rate varies between 0.7 per cent and 3.4 per cent depending on the location and,
crucially, access to good hospital care.

Scientists in China believe that Covid-19 has mutated into two strains, one more aggressive
than the other, which could make developing a vaccine more complicated.

How did the outbreak start?

The source of the coronavirus is believed to be a "wet market" in Wuhan which sold both
dead and live animals including fish and birds. 

Such markets pose a heightened risk of viruses jumping from animals to humans because
hygiene standards are difficult to maintain if live animals are being kept and butchered on
site. Typically, they are also densely packed allowing disease to spread from species to
species.

The animal source of Covid-19 has not yet been identified, but the original host is thought to
be bats. Bats were not sold at the Wuhan market but may have infected live chickens or other
animals sold there. 

Bats are host to a wide range of zoonotic viruses including Ebola, HIV and rabies.

Unethical and careless behaviour of WHO

The World Health Organization must be held to account for its colossal mishandling of the
coronavirus outbreak.

From the early days of the outbreak the organization has been parroting Chinese propaganda
and downplaying the seriousness of the illness. By January China was telling the world not to
worry about COVID-19 as it was not transmitted “human-to-human” even though Wuhan Dr.
Li Wenliang had warned colleagues about the SARS-like illness in the weeks before.

The Chinese government then reached out to the in-country WHO office and briefed officials
on the virus, the treatment and recommendations.

The World Health Organization ate it all up and published these official recommendations:

“WHO does not recommend any specific measures for travellers”

Then the document took a rather political turn, reading, “WHO advises against the application
of any travel or trade restrictions on China based on the current information available on this
event.”

Around that time, China’s National Health Commission ordered all medical and health
facilities to cease publishing any materials related to the coronavirus. It also ordered
laboratories to conceal and destroy testing samples.

Meanwhile, people were travelling out of Wuhan and into the United States every single day.
Flights from Wuhan were arriving at Los Angeles International Airport, San Francisco
International Airport and John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York routinely.

By early January high-ranking officials in the United States government were aware that there
was a SARS-like virus spreading in Wuhan, China.  However, as reported thoroughly by Jim
Geraghty of National Review, “The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released another
statement, repeating, ‘As of now, preliminary investigations have shown no clear evidence of
human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infections.’”

These assessments from Chinese officials continued for weeks and the WHO has there at every
turn to back them up, Tweeting on January 14th, “Preliminary investigations conducted by the
Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel
#coronavirus.”
On Jan. 19 the WHO was still echoing the official Chinese propaganda. As Geraghty writes, on
that day, “The Chinese National Health Commission declares the virus “still preventable and
controllable.” The World Health Organization updates its statement, declaring, “Not enough is
known to draw definitive conclusions about how it is transmitted, the clinical features of the
disease, the extent to which it has spread, or its source, which remains unknown.”

Less than a week later, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus went on the
record, giving a glowing review of China’s handling of the eventual pandemic. “I was very
impressed by the detail and depth of China’s presentation. I also appreciate the cooperation of
China’s Minister of Health, who I have spoken with directly during the last few days and
weeks. His leadership and the intervention of President Xi and Premier Li have been
invaluable, and all the measures they have taken to respond to the outbreak.”

By this time, cases were popping up in the United States and by Feb. 1, Dr. Li Wenliang had
succumbed to the virus.

W.H.O ignored warning of Taiwan

Taiwan says WHO failed to act on coronavirus transmission warning

Taiwan has accused the World Health Organization of failing to communicate an early
warning about transmission of the coronavirus between humans, slowing the global response
to the pandemic. Health officials in Taipei said they alerted the WHO at the end of December
about the risk of human-to-human transmission of the new virus but said its concerns were
not passed on to other countries.

The WHO’s relationship with China has been criticised in the past, with some accusing the
organisation of overly praising Beijing’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak despite
allegations local officials had initially covered it up. Taiwan said its doctors had heard from
mainland colleagues that medical staff were getting ill — a sign of human-to-human
transmission.
Taipei officials said they reported this to both International Health Regulations (IHR), a
WHO framework for exchange of epidemic prevention and response data between 196
countries, and Chinese health authorities on December 31. Taiwanese government officials
told the Financial Times the warning was not shared with other countries.

Donald Trump Slammed the W.H.O over Coronavirus

President Trump unleashed a tirade against the World Health Organization on Tuesday, 8

April, accusing it of acting too slowly to sound the alarm about the coronavirus.

Government officials, health experts and analysts have in recent weeks raised concerns about
how the organization has responded to the outbreak.

In Japan, Taro Aso, the deputy prime minister and finance minister, recently noted that some
people have started referring to the World Health Organization as the “Chinese Health
Organization” because of what he described as its close ties to Beijing. Taiwanese officials
say the W.H.O. ignored its early warnings about the virus because China refuses to allow
Taiwan, a self-governing island it claims as its territory, to become a member.

Critics say the W.H.O. has been too trusting of the Chinese government, which initially tried
to conceal the outbreak in Wuhan. Others have faulted the organization and its leader, Dr.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, for moving too slowly in declaring a global health
emergency.
The W.H.O., a United Nations agency, has defended its response, saying on Wednesday that
it alerted the world to the threat posed by the virus in a timely manner and that it was
“committed to ensuring all member states are able to respond effectively to this pandemic.”

WHO and Chinese money

WHO has required voluntary budgetary contributions to meet

 Its broad mandate. In recent years, the WHO has grown more reliant upon these
 Funds to address budget deficits. This dependence on voluntary contributions leaves
the WHO
 Highly susceptible to the influence of individual countries or organizations. China’s
WHO contributions have grown by 52% since 2014 to
 Approximately $86 million.
WHO announced corona outbreak pandemic on 12 , march and caused huge loss to
human lives and world economy . Till ,13 April world has confirmed cases of 1699595
and deaths to 106138 peoples affecting 213 countries of the world . A virus started from a
small part of china took this big face of danger to humanity . This is big failure of
WHO , it was not taken serious or WHO believed china blindly .

This is unethical behaviour of WHO which made a epidemic to pandemic and caused this
huge spread of this killer virus . WHO failed in fulfilling there duty properly because of
which lakhs of people lost there life . Europeon countries are severely affected by this
virus positive cases are increasing day by day . Again a virus from a small palce wuhan
spread to whole world this is the biggest failure of century.

No one has right to play with lives of peoples like this ,no one cared about ethical
considerations of national influenza preparedness plans .